Rec Tec Industries, LLC v. Thermal Engineering Corporation, No. 1:2019cv00164 - Document 37 (S.D. Ga. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER denying without prejudice 35 Motion to Dismiss; denying without prejudice 36 Motion to Seal Document. Should Plaintiff choose to seek to seal the Settlement Agreement again, it shall file a motion with attached documents in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Court's Local Rules within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 05/15/2020. (thb) Modified on 5/15/2020 (thb).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Rec Tec Industries, LLC v. Thermal Engineering Corporation Doc. 37 Case 1:19-cv-00164-JRH-BKE Document 37 Filed 05/15/20 Page 1 of 12 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT AUGUSTA DIV. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 20 MAY 15 PH AUGUSTA DIVISION CLERK REC TEC INDUSTRIES, LLC, SO. Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, CV 119-164 V. THERMAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION, a South Carolina Corporation, Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff. ORDER Before the Court are Plaintiff's consent motion to file the Parties' Full and Final Settlement Agreement and Release ("Settlement Agreement") under seal (Doc. 36) and the Parties' motion for dismissal (Doc. 35). For the following reasons, the motions are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. I. BACKGROUND On March 30, 2020, the Parties filed a joint motion for dismissal informing the Court they resolved this action. for Dismissal, Doc. 35.) (Mot. As part of the motion, the Parties ask that their Settlement Agreement be made an Order of the Court. (Id.) The Parties attached a cover sheet to the joint motion entitled "Exhibit A: To Be Filed Under Seal." (Mot. for Dismissal Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:19-cv-00164-JRH-BKE Document 37 Filed 05/15/20 Page 2 of 12 Ex. A, Doc. 35-1.) The motion for dismissal explains that the cover sheet stands in place of the Settlement Agreement. (Mot. for Dismissal.) In conjunction with the joint motion for dismissal. Plaintiff filed its consent motion to file under seal on March 31, 2020. (Consent Mot. to Seal, Doc. 36.) Plaintiff argues that relevant factors weigh in favor of sealing the Settlement Agreement. at 2-5.) (Id. The motion professes that "[a] copy of Exhibit A to the Motion for Dismissal will be hand-delivered to the Court." at 1 n.l.) Plaintiff subsequently provided the (Id. Settlement Agreement.^ II. DISCUSSION The Eleventh Circuit has long recognized a ''presumptive common law right to inspect and copy judicial records." United States V. Rosenthal, 763 F.2d 1291, 1293 (11th Cir. 1985) (citing Nixon V. Warner Commc^ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)). "The operations of the courts and the judicial conduct of judges are matters of utmost public concern, . . . and the common-law right of access to judicial proceedings, an essential component of our system of justice, is instrumental in securing the integrity of 1 Therefore, the Settlement Agreement is not currently part of the record Case 1:19-cv-00164-JRH-BKE Document 37 Filed 05/15/20 Page 3 of 12 the process." Romero v. Drummond Co., Inc., 480 F.3d 1234, 1245 (11th Cir. 2007) (citation and internal citation omitted). A party can justify sealing a document by showing good cause. Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1310 (11th Cir. 2001). Good cause is determined by balancing the historical presumption of right to access against the movant's privacy interests. 803 (11th Cir. Id. at 1311; Newman v. Graddick, 696 F.2d 796, 1983). ''[T]he nature and character information in question" determines good cause. at 1246 (quoting Chicago Tribune, 263 F.3d of the Romero, 480 F.3d at 1315). Courts evaluate, among other considerations: (a) "whether allowing access would impair court functions or harm legitimate privacy interests"; (b) "the degree of and likelihood of injury if" the information was "made public"; (c) "the reliability of the information"; (d) "whether there will be an opportunity to respond to the information"; (e) "whether the information concerns public officials or public concerns"; and (f) "the availability of a less onerous alternative." Id. Whether a movant establishes good cause is within the determining court's discretion. See Newman, 696 F.2d at 803. The Court's Local Rules establish the procedure for sealing documents. LR 79.7, SDGa. A "person desiring to have any matter placed under seal shall present a motion setting forth the grounds why the matter presented should not be available for public Case 1:19-cv-00164-JRH-BKE Document 37 Filed 05/15/20 Page 4 of 12 inspection." Id. 79.7(b). The Local Rules set forth three layers of information to which a motion to seal may extend: ^Ml) the name of the movant; (2) the title of the filing sought to be sealed; and (3) the contents of the filing itself." Id. 79.7(d). Furthermore, A party who moves to seal any matter submitted to the Court shall indicate whether the matter should be sealed permanently or until: (1) the conclusion of the trial, (2) the entry of final judgment, (3) the conclusion of the direct appeal, or (4) some other specified time. The permanent sealing of a Court record is not preferred and should be sought only where temporary sealing is not adequate to protect the interest at stake. Upon the expiration of any temporary sealing period, the matter shall be unsealed and made a part of the public record. Id. 79.7(e). Here, Plaintiff failed to request a duration of the sealing. Even if the motion to file under seal meets no opposition, the parties to a lawsuit lack the authority to determine which documents outweigh the public's common law right of access. Wilson V. 1985). Am. Motors Corp., 759 F.2d 1568, 1571 (11th Cir. Therefore, "^Mistrict court[s] must keep in mind the rights of a third party — the public, ^if the public is to appreciate fully the often significant events at issue in public litigation and the workings of the legal system.'" 803). Id. (quoting Newman, 696 F.2d at Despite guidance in this Circuit exhibiting a reluctance to seal documents, the present motion is in line with a growing. Case 1:19-cv-00164-JRH-BKE Document 37 Filed 05/15/20 Page 5 of 12 concerning trend of filings seemingly assuming the Court grants requests to seal as a matter of course. Within its brief motion to file under seal. Plaintiff offers varying and inconsistent justifications for sealing the Settlement Agreement. At the outset. Plaintiff contends that the Settlement Agreement merits sealing because it contains ^^sensitive business terms and competitive terms." Instead of citing case law (Consent Mot. to Seal, at 1.) justifying sealing the Settlement Agreement for this reason. Plaintiff offers authority asserting the Court should seal the Settlement Agreement because the Parties intended the agreement to be confidential. (See id. at 2-3.) Finally, in a cursory good cause analysis. Plaintiff notes that it prefers not to share its trademark valuations with the general public. (Id. at 4.) The Court addresses Plaintiff's arguments under the Romero factors. A. Whether Allowing Access Would Impair Court Functions or Harm Legitimate Privacy Interests As Plaintiff points out, it is unlikely allowing access would impair Court functions. allowing access would Plaintiff further contends, though, that "harm the parties' legitimate privacy interests in limiting disclosure of the agreement to the general public." (Consent Mot. to Seal, at 4.) upon this notion. Plaintiff fails to expand Although true that settlement agreements are Case 1:19-cv-00164-JRH-BKE Document 37 Filed 05/15/20 Page 6 of 12 generally private, the filing of the agreement with the Court makes the document a judicial record. See Kemar v. Avco Corp., No. 6:06- cv-448-Orl-22DAB, 2007 WL 2696571, at *2 {M.D. Fla. Sept. 11, 2007) ("By filing the suit, the matter became this [c]ourt's business, and this [c]ourt conducts business [publicly]. Having chosen to pursue a claim in a public court, [the] [p]laintiff must take the burdens of such forum, as well as its benefits."). That the negotiations insufficient Settlement that on its were Agreement intended own to "concerns to overcome be the settlement confidential" public is presumption. (Consent Mot. to Seal, at 3); Brown v. Advantage Eng^g, Inc., 960 F.2d 1013, 1016 (11th Cir. 1992) ("It is immaterial whether the sealing of the record is an integral part of a negotiated settlement agreement between the parties, even if the settlement comes with the court's active encouragement. Once a matter is brought before a court for resolution, it is no longer solely the parties' case, but also the public's case."); see also Willis v. United States, No. CV 117-015, 2019 WL 7194599, at *2 (S.D. Ga. Dec. 26, 2019); Eigenberger v. Tokyo Statesboro GA, LLC, No. CV617- 160, 2018 WL 2065942, at *2 (S.D. Ga. May 3, 2018) ("[T]he [c]ourt needs far more than the parties' agreement that the settlement agreement should be sealed."). Plaintiff's citation to Local Access, LLC v. Peerless Network, Inc., No. 6:14-cv-339-Orl-40TBS, 2017 WL 2212786, at *2 Case 1:19-cv-00164-JRH-BKE Document 37 Filed 05/15/20 Page 7 of 12 (M.D. Fla. May 17, 2017), provides minimal position. (Consent Mot. to Seal, at 2-3.) authority Local Access relied upon, support for its Local Access, and the involved enforcing a confidential settlement agreement, not the filing of a settlement agreement in the first instance for the court's adoption. distinguishing fact is significant. entered a customary. private, confidential This In Local Access, the Parties settlement agreement as is Because that confidential settlement agreement later generated a dispute requiring the court's resolution, the court determined sealing the settlement public's right to access. agreement outweighed 2017 WL 2212786, at *2 the C^So, for example, when a party seeks to enforce a confidential settlement agreement, some courts have permitted the filing of the agreement under seal to preserve confidentiality.") (emphasis added). The Parties here do not seek to enforce a settlement agreement, and therefore, the reasoning in Local Access is largely inapplicable. With that said, the Court recognizes Plaintiff's possess some level of interest in maintaining the privacy of sensitive business and competitive terms. here. But the Court finds a minimal interest First, Plaintiff offers no argument that the terms at issue are trade secrets. See BASF Corp. v. SNF Holding Co., No. 4:17- cv-251, 2019 WL 3554699, at *5 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 5, 2019) (citing Romero, 480 F.3d at 1246, Chicago Tribune, 263 F.3d at 1313-14) ("By proceeding in this generalized manner, [the] [p]laintiff has Case 1:19-cv-00164-JRH-BKE Document 37 Filed 05/15/20 Page 8 of 12 failed to show possible harm to legitimate privacy interests, . . . and failed to establish that the information it seeks to redact actually constitutes proprietary trade secrets."). Second, a review of the Settlement Agreement uncovers no product specifications, such as design plans. Cf. generally, Chemence Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medline Indus., Inc., No. 1:13-CV-500-TWT, 2015 WL 149984 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 12, 2015). Third, several of the terms contemplated are divulged elsewhere in the record. (Compare, Settlement Agreement, at 2-3, with Answer & Countercls., Doc. 20, 105-132); see Pledger v. Reliance Tr. Co., No. 1:15-CV-4444MHC, 2019 WL Admittedly, 4439606, the at *21-22 Court declined (N.D. to Ga. compare Feb. 25, 2019). every term in the Settlement Agreement against every term displayed in the record, but that duty movant's. is not the Court's responsibility, it is the See BASF Corp., 2019 WL 3554699, at *5 (finding the plaintiff failed to establish good cause when it offered no degree of specificity redactions). require concerning the justification for numerous Plaintiff simply states that the sensitive terms redacting a substantial portion of the Settlement Agreement without establishing the need to seal any specific term or section. For these reasons, the first factor weighs against sealing the Settlement Agreement. Case 1:19-cv-00164-JRH-BKE Document 37 Filed 05/15/20 Page 9 of 12 B. The Degree and Likelihood of Injury if Made Public Plaintiff expresses that it wishes not to disclose the value it attributes to its trademarks. (Consent Mot. to Seal, at 4.) Plaintiff offers no authority asserting that such a concern is a sufficient harm to override the public's access rights. Although the Court understands Plaintiff s hesitation, the amount of the settlement is generally inadequate to merit sealing a settlement agreement. Absent ^^evidence showing how [public disclosure] could cause injury" and the ^'type of injury" feared, a party's showing is inadequate to demand sealing the financial information in the settlement. Clark v. Bamberqer, No. 1:12cvll22-MHT (WO), 2016 WL 1183180, at *3 (M.D. Ala. Mar. 28, 2016) (emphasis in original). Plaintiff's motion identifying how injury the and disregards any explanation precisely disclosure of the information creates risk of methods competitors may information to Plaintiff's disadvantage. employ to use that Plaintiffs are required to "make a particular and specific demonstration of fact showing that disclosure would result in an injury sufficiently serious to warrant protection." Thomas v. Houston Healthcare Sys. Inc., No. 5:17-cv-386(MTT), 2019 WL 5850547, at *2 (M.D. Ga. May 24, 2019) ("[C]onclusory assertions of possible harm, such as those stated by the parties, do not show good cause."). On that basis. Case 1:19-cv-00164-JRH-BKE Document 37 Filed 05/15/20 Page 10 of 12 Plaintiff's conclusory contention of potential injury falls short of the necessary showing under the likelihood of injury factor. C. Reliablli'by, Opportunity to Respond, and Public Officials or Concerns The next three factors weigh in favor of sealing the document. The Settlement information Furthermore, Agreement involving the presents public Settlement no reliability officials Agreement, or issues public unlike or concerns. other filings, requires no response. D. Availcddility of Less Onerous Alternative Finally, Plaintiff asserts 'Mue to the varied nature of the relief and releases contained within the document, [the] degree of redaction necessary would be too great to confer much benefit over sealing the document." (Consent Mot. to Seal, at 4.) Plaintiff transitions from concerns regarding sensitive business terms to the nature of relief and releases requiring sealing. Settlement agreements generally encompass some form of relief and release. Accepting Plaintiff's conclusory statement that the relief and release mandates sealing renders virtually all settlement agreements sealable. Additionally, as noted above, some of the information contained in the Settlement Agreement is readily found in other filings on the Court's docket. to seal an entire document Therefore, the Court is reluctant when 10 it finds a possibility that Case 1:19-cv-00164-JRH-BKE Document 37 Filed 05/15/20 Page 11 of 12 redaction may provide a less onerous alternative. Weighing the Romero factors, the Court concludes Plaintiff fails to meet its burden to show sealing the Settlement Agreement is necessary here. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's consent motion to file the Settlement Agreement under seal (Doc. 36) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff one adoption of additional the public access.2 opportunity to show Settlement Should Agreement The Court permits that the necessitates Court's prohibiting Plaintiff choose to seek to seal the Settlement Agreement again, it shall FILE a motion with attached documents in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Court's Local Rules within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of the date of this Order. To the extent Plaintiff determines that redacting certain information is a less troublesome route. Plaintiff shall file a proposed redacted version and an unredacted version attached to any subsequent motion. Further, the motion shall set forth the requested duration of any sealing or redaction of the document. Because the Parties made adoption of the sealed Settlement Agreement a contingency for dismissal, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 2 As noted above, the Court is not inclined to block public access to the Settlement Agreement solely because a party desires not to disclose the settlement amount. Thus, any subsequent motion must provide sufficient evidence of future harm resulting from disclosing the settlement amount to succeed. 11 Case 1:19-cv-00164-JRH-BKE Document 37 Filed 05/15/20 Page 12 of 12 the Parties' motion for dismissal (Doc. 35) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, thi day of May, 2020. HALL,/'CHIEF JUDGE ^UNITEJJ^TATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 12
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
